The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-05-24

calculated to connect church ana state,
acknowledge the weakness OF their
cause? II the amendment has no merit
Of itself, why not meet II squarely; show
up its weakness, and defeat II in an open
hand to hand encounterY What need is
there for party prejudice or opposition
to religious fanaticism? On the other
hand, if IL is a wholesome measures If its
adoption will work benefit to the gov
eminent, what If ii is undemocra.ic;
anti.republican, and set in motion by re-
! ligious fanatics? II these party orgaui-
cations, as parties, have not seen proper
to oppose it. what harm can come to
them by its adoption? Political parties
are supposed to labor for the general
good of the people, and not merely to
sustain their political organizations.
political party has no more right to make
the interests of the people subservient to
the interests of its party than the indi-
vidual who has been honored by the
people MS trusted public servant to
make the interests of his constituents
subservient to his own individual inter
ests. In either instance, a con6ding
people will become FESTIVE and suspi'
cious. Confidence one destroyed, is diff.
ficult of reinstatement.
If the measure be wholesome one,
the fact that it was set on foot by reli-
gIous fanatics and short-haired wo-
men," if may use the term, will hardly
admit of its working harm to the country.
A measure that is in itself good, can
not partake of the nature of the indi'
vidual who originated it.
Before proceeding farther, | deem it
expedient to present the platform of the
opposition. Let us look at it closely;
interpret it fairly; and then we will be
competent to pass judgment upon it as
whole. The first plank in their plat
form reads as follows:
1st. 1--WE oppose the prohibition
movement because it is a proposition to
change our form of government from
free republic of sovereign ard independ-
ent citizens to species of paternalism,
hateful to our people 1t will take from
them their most sacred inalenable
rights, and will add to and augment the
powers of government, and is therefore
undemocratic and anti-republican."
Will it in fact "change our form OF
government from a free republic of SOW
ereign and Independent citizens to a
species Of paternalism hateful to our
peoples" What, letting the people them
selves do their legislating instead of in
trusting to Others without instructions,
deprive the people of their sovereign
power? Methinks not. Itsmacks more
of the idea of the people asserting their
sovereign power and directing their SER
wants exactly what they shall do. 1t is the
only way that the people have of being
heard as individuals; and as to paternal.
ism, il seems to me that the effort to
force upon our people the thoughts and
opinions of others in preference to let
ting each individual think and act for
himself, smacks more of paternalism.
What is the effort of the ants? Is it
not to bind you irrevocably to some
theory not advanced by yourselfS 1t
seems so to me. Why point to Jefferson,
Seymour and Tilden, if people have
minds of their own, and are to exercise
them2 Why not present your arguments
directly to the people and let them de-
eide for themselves? A free people are
supposed to act Independently. Would
it not be wiser to let the people them
selves say whether or not it was hate
full to them2 They are competent to do
so, are they notr
The sacred and nalienable rights Of the
citizen and the democratic feature OF the
question will be discussed in connection
with the second plank of the platform,
which is as follows:
end We oppose this amendment be
cause IL is sumptuary and will vex the
citizen and interfere with individual
liberty.
The sacred and inalenable rights OF
the citizen. What rights are sought to
be invaded2 The right to sell and manu-
facture intoxicating liquors in Texas.
Can that be called sacred? Is it not a
prostitution of the word sacredg In
alienable rights Of the citizens. What
are theyI Can a free people be said ia